The court emphasized that the cancellation of the lease agreement, being a commercial transaction, cannot be agitated before the court.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the lease agreement, dated 21.7.2008, entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, had been cancelled by the impugned proceedings, dated 6.2.2012, issued by the second respondent, without prior notice having been issued to the petitioner. Since the second respondent had not followed the principles of natural justice before cancelling the lease agreement, by his order, dated 6.2.2012, the said proceedings is arbitrary illegal and void.

3. It has been further submitted that the lease agreement, entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, is for a period of five years, from 21.7.2008 to 20.7.2013. However, the second respondent has terminated the lease, without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, on the allegation that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to certain third parties, contrary to Clause 11 of the lease agreement.

4. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioner had challenged the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, who is the official liquidator appointed to liquidate the Dharmapuri Weavers Cooperative Society. The lease agreement had been executed by the second respondent, in favour of the petitioner, only on behalf of the said society. Further, the lease agreement is purely a commercial transaction.

5. It had been further stated that the lease agreement had been cancelled by the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 6.2.2012, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Dharmapuri, stating that the petitioner had sub-let the premises in question to third parties, contrary to Clause 11 of the lease agreement. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to agitate the matter before this Court, by way of a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it may be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law.

6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. From the records available, it is noted that the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, on 21.7.2008, is purely a commercial transaction. The second respondent had signed the lease agreement on behalf of the Dharmapuri Weavers Cooperative Society. Even though the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 6.2.2012, had been passed, without a prior notice having been issued to the petitioner, the issue relating to the cancellation of the lease agreement cannot be agitated before this Court, as it is a transaction between the petitioner and the second respondent society, for commercial purposes. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

No costs. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.